alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 2701 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2016

- NE

- 03

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

co st

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### torque 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 10 $ 850.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 850



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analys is ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant reg ulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Expla nation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No an swer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
# C_2014085EN.01001302.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/13

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-669/13 P)

2014/C 85/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 (Case T-328/12); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 (Case T-328/12);

| — | Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue OXYGESIC and Maxigesic and thus that the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) had not been satisfied. The judgment under appeal is based on a distortion of the facts and contains contradictions which infringe the general rules of logic. It constitutes an infringement of Community law, namely of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. If the General Court had carried out a correct and non-contradictory assessment of the facts of the case, it would have reached the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and would therefore have upheld the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 May 2012.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
The next Finance PRC Meeting has been scheduled for July 13-14, 2005, from 0900 hrs to 1500 hrs at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  It will be in Conference Room 4501, at the HQ DLA building and is scheduled to end at 1500 on July 14th.

The following topics will be included on our agenda:

1. Cross issuing of DoDAACS.  There is n o prohibition of each service code issuing DoDAACs for the purpose of MILSTRIP requisitions to other service codes.

2. System Change Request (SCR) done for DAAS to accommodate Intergovernmental Transactions (IGTS) Eliminations Project needs to be readdressed and submitted to DAAS to instill the necessary Fund Code changes.

3. Need of specific interfold  transactions to transfer Summary Billing Records (SBRs) and Treasury Records between Central Account Offices (CAO’s)

4. Discuss current process for  interfund eliminations under the Intergovernmental  Transactions (IGTS) project.

5. Discuss the need for establishing a specific DOC ID to use when a credit bill will be used instead of a Product Quality Discrepancy Report (PQDR).

6. Discuss the possibility of adding D0DDAC F49902 to the ADC 110 Change.

7. Determine who will bear responsibility to submit request for DAASC coding in order to prevent Business Partner Number (BPN’s) to requisition, order or be billed in any method.  Also, BPN with Interfund bill.

8. Discuss X12/XML progress of the interfund world.

9. **Interfund bills continue to be processed citing suspense accounts as the charged appropriation, proposal for another edit to be added to DAASC in order to prohibit this.**

10. **Discuss FMS 8242 , limits and fund code supplement table.**

11. **Request DAASC add a payment address section for contractual documents.**

Please refer to the following websites:

For directions: http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/about/directions.asp

For nearby hotels:  http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/a_hotels.doc

For registration:   http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/eapplications/interestapp/public/login.asp

For Temporary Parking:  http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Finance/financeprc.asp

You can request your password if you forgot it, or register if new; your e-mail is your userid.

Thanks.
B-F2073E (1/22) ©2022 Magellan Health, Inc.

Critical Incident 

Response (CIR)

When your workplace is disrupted by a traumatic event, you and your staff may feel overwhelmed, 

anxious, unsettled and distracted. Tragedy has many faces, and each experience is unique. Our 

Critical Incident Response (CIR) team is here to support you and your staff with immediate and 

compassionate assistance, any time—day or night.

What does the CIR team do?

When a traumatic event occurs, using CIR services can help minimize the long-term effects on you, your staff and the 

organization. Our centralized, dedicated team of CIR specialists are clinical professionals specially trained in CIR. The 

CIR team is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and has an average of 17 years of experience. CIR counselors help 

individuals process and cope with the emotional and physical impacts of a traumatic event by fostering their natural 

resilience, coping skills and strategies. 

A broad range of CIR services are available and they are deployed according to your organization’s unique needs. 

Services include Psychological First Aid (PFA), Management Consultations, group and individual support to affected 

employees and telephonic crisis support. Services are confidential and here to provide you and your staff with the 

resources and support needed to manage potential stress and anxiety through an event and return to their regular life. 

Tragic events may include, but are not limited to:

• Unexpected death of a co-worker

• Workplace injury

• Organizational restructuring or layoffs

• Industrial, safety or natural disasters

• Public health emergencies

• Acts of violence such as a robbery, shooting, 

stabbing or terrorism

• Emergencies that overload healthcare facilities

How does CIR work?

The first step is to consult with a Magellan clinician who will ask about what happened and assess the situation and your 

staff’s needs. Once the situation is assessed and a plan of action is developed, we will send a CIR counselor to your work 

site within an appropriate and agreed upon time frame. The CIR counselor will conduct an onsite structured intervention 

to help manage the incident, when appropriate, and also be available to management staff and individual employees as 

needed.

How to get started

When your organization or departments within your organization experience a crisis situation or traumatic event, give us 

a call. Our CIR team is ready and here to help.

Employee Assistance Program

1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711)

MagellanAscend.com
No. 10-5813.

#### Hung Ha, Petitioner v. William McGuiness.

562 U.S. 957, 131 S. Ct. 469,

178 L. Ed. 2d 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7861.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# C_2015236EN.01002101.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/21

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów

(Case C-275/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 2(3) - Direct effect - Motor fuel additives coming under heading 3811 of the CN))

(2015/C 236/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be construed as precluding national provisions, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which impose excise duty on additives coming under heading 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, at a rate which differs from that applied to the fuel to which they are added. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be construed as precluding national provisions, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which impose excise duty on additives coming under heading 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, at a rate which differs from that applied to the fuel to which they are added.

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by an individual as against the competent national authority in proceedings before a national court which seek to have set aside the application of national legal rules which are at variance with that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by an individual as against the competent national authority in proceedings before a national court which seek to have set aside the application of national legal rules which are at variance with that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
No. 10-7492.

#### Margaret Jefferson, Petitioner v. Miller Brothers Ford, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1010,

178 L. Ed. 2d 838,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 888,

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County, denied.
*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP6.16. APPENDIX 6.16**

**MESSAGE REPLY TO SPECIALMATERIEL OBLIGATION VALIDATION REQUEST**

FROM:  {INSERT ADDRESS OF INITIATOR}

TO:  {INSERT ADDRESSEE}

SUBJECT:  REPLY TO MILSTRIP SPECIAL MATERIEL OBLIGATION VALIDATION REQUEST

1.  THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE ON {INSERT DATE OF REQUEST} REQUESTING SPECIAL VALIDATION OF NEED FOR ITEM HELD AS A MATERIEL OBLIGATION.

	A.  DOCUMENT NUMBER {ENTER REQUISITION NUMBER}.

	B.  STOCK OR PART NO.  {ENTER APPLICABLE NUMBER}.

	C.  QUANTITY {ENTER QUANTITY STILL REQUIRED OR “NONE”}.

2.  A QUANTITY OF:    _____________ HAS BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO PREPARATION OF THIS VALIDATION RESPONSE.

**SAMPLE**

NOTE:  Paragraph 2 above shall be omitted if none of the items have been received.  

***1***

APPENDIX 1.16

AP6.16-1

APPENDIX 6.16
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35907-35908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17446]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 988]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Artesyn Technologies 
(Inc.) (Electric Power Supplies), Redwood Falls, Minnesota

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the FTZ Act), 
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign 
Trade Zone Commission, Inc., grantee of FTZ 119, for authority to 
establish special-purpose subzone status for the electric power supply 
manufacturing facilities of Artesyn Technologies (Inc.)(formerly, Zytec 
Corporation), in Redwood Falls, Minnesota, was filed by the Board on 
August 22, 1997, and notice inviting public comment was given in the 
Federal Register (FTZ Docket 68-97, 62 FR 45793, 8-29-97); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;

[[Page 35908]]

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the Artesyn Technologies (Inc.), facilities in Redwood Falls, 
Minnesota (Subzone 119F), at the locations described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of June 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17446 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of Onyeka Ibe, Appellant, v Pratt Institute, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 558]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Pratt Institute expelling the petitioner from its Master of Fine Arts Program, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated June 17, 2015, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner, a graduate student in the Master of Fine Arts program at Pratt Institute, was expelled following an investigation into several complaints that he had sexually harassed other students. In May 2014, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determi*726nation expelling him from Pratt Institute. In the order and judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

“[P]rivate schools are afforded broad discretion in conducting their programs, including decisions involving the discipline, suspension and expulsion of their students” *(Hutcheson v Grace Lutheran School,*132 AD2d 599, 599 [1987]; *see Matter of VanHouten v Mount St. Mary Coll.,*137 AD3d 1293, 1295 [2016]; *Matter of Khaykin v Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn,*124 AD3d 781, 782 [2015]). “Judicial review of the actions of a private school in disciplinary matters is limited to a determination as to whether the school acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or whether it substantially complied with its own rules and regulations” *(Matter of VanHouten v Mount St. Mary Coll.,*137 AD3d at 1295; *see Tedeschi v Wagner Coll.,*49 NY2d 652, 660 [1980]; *Cavanagh v Cathedral Preparatory Seminary,*284 AD2d 360, 361 [2001]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, Pratt Institute informed him of the specific allegations against him, and substantially complied with its sexual harassment policy *(see Matter of VanHouten v Mount St. Mary Coll.,*137 AD3d at 1295; *Matter of Khaykin v Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn,*124 AD3d at 782; *Matter of Hyman v Cornell Univ.,*82 AD3d 1309, 1310 [2011]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition rnd dismissed the proceeding.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Austin £nd Roman, JJ., concur.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: ___2014_______-NM-_____009_____-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, October 09, 2018*

*Change 11*

**AP7.33 APPENDIX 7.33**

**Demand Planning Status Code**

AP7.33-1	APPENDIX 7.33
EXHIBIT (12)

Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Year ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges (Note A)

$
108,185,260

$
91,690,922

$
99,409,515

$
65,781,250

$
62,144,879Fixed Charges:Interest on long-term debt

$
36,040,957

$
31,120,122

$
25,947,191

$
24,059,165

$
24,640,812Interest on short-term debt


1,853,682


2,940,317


2,275,939


195,197


19,854Interest on note payable to securitization trust


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000Other interest


1,152,588


1,069,206


1,029,135


605,492


366,642Rental expense representative of an interest factor (Note B)


6,040,062


4,686,748


4,798,490


659,844


28,144Total fixed charges

$
49,337,289

$
44,066,393

$
38,300,755

$
29,769,698

$
29,305,452Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


2.19


2.08


2.60


2.21


2.12


NOTE A:
For the purpose of determining earnings in the calculation of the ratio, net income has been increased by the provision for income taxes, non-operating income taxes,
minority interest and by the sum of fixed charges as shown above.

NOTE B:
One-third of rental expense (which approximates the interest factor).

---



QuickLinks
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2943 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2019 

Received 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make all 

fact sheets of the Department of Veterans Affairs in 

English, Spanish, and Tagalog. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2943 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Benefits In3 formation in Spanish and Tagalog for Veterans and Fami4 lies Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FACT SHEETS. 

6 (a) LANGUAGES.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall make versions of all fact sheets of the Department 

8 of Veterans Affairs in English, Spanish, and Tagalog. 

9 (b) WEBSITE.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

10 shall establish and maintain a publicly available website 

11 of the Department of Veterans Affairs that contains links 

12 to all fact sheets of the Veterans Benefits Administration, 

13 Veterans Health Administration, and of the National 

14 Cemetery Administration. The website shall be accessible 

15 by a clearly labeled hyperlink on the homepage of the De16 partment. 

17 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

18 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

19 Affairs shall submit a report to Congress regarding fact 

20 sheets described in subsection (a) and details of the Lan21 guage Access Plan of the Department of Veteran Affairs. 

22 The report shall include the following: 

23 (1) What the Secretary determines constitutes 

24 a fact sheet of the Department for purposes of this 

25 Act. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2943 RDS

1 (2) How such fact sheets are utilized and dis2 tributed other than on and through the website of 

3 the Department. 

4 (3) How such Language Access Plan is commu5 nicated to veterans, family members of veterans, and 

6 caregivers. 

7 (4) The roles and responsibilities of patient ad8 vocates in the coordination of care for veterans with 

9 limited English proficiency, family members of such 

10 veterans, and caregivers. 

11 (5) Other demographic information that the 

12 Secretary determines appropriate regarding veterans 

13 with limited English proficiency. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS